When US special forces took
aim at Anwar al-Awlaki, and pulled the trigger, they ruptured the very
foundations of our political system – and paved the way for its future
collapse.

The skeptical reader is bound
to ask: Really? Can it be true that the – no doubt well-deserved
– death of a known terrorist, who was plotting and scheming to kill
Americans, is inextricably bound up with the survival of our Republic?

The short answer is: yes. A
somewhat longer answer, however, is embedded in some of the reactions
to the Awlaki affair. Take, for example, the distinguished foreign policy
analyst Walter Russell Mead, writing in The American Interest. Mead
takes up the cudgels against GlennGreenwald and RonPaul for arguing
that the killing is a legal and moral transgression. After a few self-congratulatory
remarks to the effect that his notable book, Special Providence,
predicted the confluence of left and right critics of untrammeled executive
power in foreign affairs, he gets down to his basic argument:

“Al-Awlaki and his buds
are at war with the people of the United States and that in war, people
not only die: it is sometimes your duty to kill them. That the Al-Qaeda
groupies are levying war against the United States without benefit of
a government does not make them less legitimate targets for missiles,
bullets and any other instruments of execution we may have lying around:
the irresponsibility, the contempt for all legal norms, the chaotic
and anarchic nature of the danger they pose and the sheer wickedness
of waging private war make them even more legitimate targets with even
fewer rights than combatants fighting under legal governments that observe
the laws of war.”

One is struck by the moral
condemnation of “private war,” as opposed to the presumably “public”
war waged by states: is it really true that the much more efficiently deadly assaults launched by nation-states against their enemies are
morally superior to the usually far less deadly and oftenineffective attacks carried out by free-lancers? This hardly seems to be borne out
by the record, and the sheer numbers involved: al-Qaeda killed three
thousand New Yorkers – and we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
in our misdirected war of revenge. So which is the greater evil?

One could make the argument,
as I think Mead does, that killing in a war setting, as opposed to cowardly
attacks on innocent civilians by terrorists, attaches to the latter
a weightier malevolence, but this says nothing about the legal status
of Americans accused of such crimes.

In targeting and killing an
American citizen, without going to the bother of indicting and convicting
him in a court of law, we have stripped all Americans of what
little protection they have left against the depredations of a tyrannical
government. The authorities can read our emails, listen to our phone
calls, and rifle through our garbage – all in the name of our endless “war on terrorism” – and now they can kill us, too, without even
a nod to legality. Nor do they have to reveal the reasons for our summary
execution: it’s all “secret,” because, after all, they have to
protect their “sources and methods.” Their methods, though, are
coming to resemble those of the Gestapo and the KGB, as opposed to the
law enforcement practices of a free people.

It used to be that American
citizenship exempted us from the vicissitudes regularly visited on less
fortunate foreigners, inhabitants of various banana republics and absolute
monarchies, who are subject to their rulers’ whims and random cruelties.
This is the much-touted “American exceptionalism” conservatives
rhapsodize over: this is what made us “a shining city on a hill”
rather than just another statist shantytown.

Mead conjures Lincoln’s shade
to justify the al-Awlaki killing, as do others, but this merely underscores
the danger of Obama’s lawless act: does Mead really mean to liken
the circumstances surrounding al-Awlaki’s death to the conditions
prevalent in the American Civil War? This example bodes ill for those
who, like myself, can easily visualize a repeat of the al-Awlaki affair
on American soil. Mead doesn’t allay our fears when he writes the
following:

“Mr. Al-Awlaki chose to
make himself what used to be called an outlaw; a person at war with
society who is no longer protected by the laws he seeks to destroy.
He was not a criminal who has broken some particular set of laws; he
was an enemy seeking to destroy all the laws and the institutions that
create them. His fiery sermons inspired numerous jihadists, like Fort Hood
shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, to attack Americans. He was personally involved
with planning the attempted Christmas Day bombing
in 2009 and he mentored several of the 9/11 bombers. That
he was at war with the United States may not have been proved in a criminal
court but is not really up for debate.”

Mead has created an entire
category of American citizens, “outlaws,” who achieve this degraded
status merely by virtue of their beliefs. He admits al-Awlaki broke
no “particular set of laws,” but avers that the cleric’s crime
was greater than that, because “he was an enemy seeking to destroy
all the laws and the institutions that create them.” Yet this is precisely
the definition of a revolutionary: that is, one who seeks to upend the
status quo, whatever it may be, and create something new. And this new
“crime” – or has it always been a crime? – is not necessarily
limited to physical acts of destruction: one can, like al-Awlaki, merely
“inspire” others by giving “fiery sermons,” and get the death penalty
in Mead’s – and Obama’s – book. A faint link to actually planning
a terrorist attack is invoked in the case of al-Awlaki’s alleged involvement
with the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt, but the evidence for that
– as is all the “evidence” involving the murdered cleric – is
deemed too “sensitive” for public release. Even the legal justification for the killing has been classified “Top Secret”!

The Meadian justification for
the killing of al-Awlaki could just as easily be used to rationalize
the extra-judicial murder of government critics, or the detention of
those whose invective might “inspire” others to act in a way displeasing
to our beneficent rulers. He rushes to assure us that no such scenario
is in the making, but how can he know that? Imagine a future United
States of America beset by economic turmoil and political upheaval:
for the first time since the Civil War, the Union is threatened. In
that case, a large proportion of the population could conceivably be
deemed “outlaws,” whose summary execution without benefit of trial
is justified in the name of protecting the unity and sanctity of the
State.

This would be the bloody and
dreary end of “American exceptionalism” – a tragic fate the assassination
of al-Awlaki brings that much closer.

201203711649 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fjustin%2F2011%2F10%2F04%2Fanwar-al-awlaki-and-american-exceptionalism%2FAnwar+al-Awlaki+and+American+Exceptionalism+2011-10-05+06%3A00%3A32Justin+Raimondohttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2F%3Fp%3D2012037116 to “Anwar al-Awlaki and American Exceptionalism”

If killing Awlaki is justified why doesn't the president order a drone strike on the head of the Ku Klux Klan? Afer all, the same logic should apply right? By the way, feel free to use that one Justin!

The New World Order will rule the world by implanting computer ships in everyone. Those who resist such tactics will be hit by drones. If someobne with a computer chip is someplace he should not be. He will be hit by drones as well. With the techology they have today they can control everything. The real 1984 is finally here.

I'm surprised Raimondo didn't try this angle, but shouldn't we put the onus on the pro-Execution crowd to explain how they would protect OUR rights? In other words, even if we're going to break or bend the law (or make up new ones on the fly) in order to do something imminently practical, like kill a known terrorist, shouldn't we at least feel the need to explain why the slope isn't slippery?

I haven't read the full Meade piece, but in the excerpts above there is nothing at all about OUR rights as (non-terrorist) American citizens. Shouldn't that be the main concern? Instead, everyone — critic and supporter alike — seems to focus on whether Awlaki has retained or relinquished HIS rights. Who gives a rip? — I care about my rights and my children's rights. And so should the US government.

If killing Awlaki is legal because he influenced people to commit crimes- what then about the people who have had contact with him, who he may have influenced? What about the people they might have in turn influenced? If this man must not be allowed to live, because of his influence, can any of the people with whom he has been in contact be allowed to live?

It's a bit extreme, perhaps, but no more extreme than killing a man for what he has said, not anything he did.

There can only be a few hundred, thousand, or tens of thousands of people that'll have to be killed, before America can be truly safe from Awlaki's influence.

Well, darn, isn't this al-Awlaki now suddenly a super evil and super powerful guy. More than anything, I see this as the government making an example of him- a warning to all Americans who consider daring to criticize the government. Just as they made an example of Manning to all would-be whistle blowers. The aim- to protect the empire, which has been reduced to a war machine, nothing else. We're certainly not contributing with anything else to the world but death and destruction, and financial disaster at home.

1.This man was on the kill on sight list for two years and yet not a single shred of evidence was ever offered to a court that he was a threat sufficient enough to have a warrant issued for his arrest. There is still no evidence to be had. We get government officials talking about how he was believed to have begun planning and operational duties, how one financial backer wanted him to replace bin Laden (and they've never lied to us about a Middle East 'enemy' before),or that his sermons influenced people to take up arms against the US. Well how many times have ministers in the US used the bible to urge parishoners to go to war because God was on our side? How much of an effort would it be to get a young Muslim angry enough to want to attack the United States after a decade of watching the United States kill Muslim civilians day in and day out?

2.
This country is run by precedent. Obama and Bush have given future presidents reasons to ignore the rule of law, due process, and the fourth, first and fifth amendments; Now an American citizen has been killed eventhough charged with no crime other than telling the world American foreign policy is evil and should be resisted.
Once this breakdown in civil liberties begins, it never recedes, it always expands. And you cannot set this as an act apart from the others like Means did and say it means nothing about civil liberty takeways because this is war and blahblahblah. They all go to together in the context of an assault on US citizens who differ in opinion with those in power. No matter how evil they considered Awlaki, the man deserved to hear the evidence and be given a chance to rebut it. I believe he was murdered precisely because they had no evidence.They made no attempt to arrest him or have him extradited. But you need evidence of a crime to do that and they had none. What to do? Why klll him of course. It may not be the accepted American way now, but it will be one day. Thanks to Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama.

Al-waki was a moderate and there is no evidence that he supported terrorism against US.He was not against Laws,People or Constitution of US as Mead falsely blurts.He was against US occupation and war crimes committed in Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan.The war criminals got him before he got anywhere.

"…He was not a criminal who has broken some particular set of laws; he was an enemy seeking to destroy all the laws and the institutions that create them…."

"All the laws and institutions" equals the U.S. government, most particularly its imperial branches. This al-Awlaki was a resistor, which is always the greatest crime in the world for apologists for U.S. imperialism. If the U.S. government wants to use your property to build a military base and you refuse to be moved, then you obviously are a lawless anarchist opposed to "all the laws and the institutions that create them."

This same argument could have been used by an apologist for Crown against the rebels of the 13 colonies fighting for independence from Britain, who were clearly enemies "seeking to destroy all the laws and the institutions that create them."

No, you're confused. I'm saying that even if one believes that Awlaki is a "known terrorist" (I have no idea) — even if that is taken as a given, then still the onus is on the pro-Execution crowd to explain why killing him w/o a trial is NOT a danger to our rights, to explain why the slippery slope doesn't lead to executing Americans for even more objectionable reasons than "he's a known terrorist." Arguing about Awlaki's rights (he's dead, by the way — or so we're told) is a dead end for our side. Instead, we should focus on our rights and liberties.

Welcome to the world of vague laws. They are used against us locally by our police forces and judges all the time and for generations, especially for minor charges where its easy to get away with injustice. Thats how our "exceptional" tyrants in the government like it.

Like the KGB? But of course! The neocons are "former" Trotskyites. They duct-taped their spots to hide them (sort of) but the effect of their coup d'etat of 2000 is now obvious. An oligarchy rules.. except we don't call the 'garchs a "nomenklatura".. we call them an "elite". Sure, the nominal headliners of the neocons have moved onto to other lucrative gigs, but the thousands of stooges they installed in the bureaucracy are still there, doing that voodoo that they do so well. Like the later stage politburo of the CCCP, the headman rotates in and out from time to time but the oligarchical system remains the same.

So you find Al Aoualki dining at Terror Central (Pentagon) one tong of "Is Mead lying, or did the Pentagon knowingly have a terrorist over for dinner"… bifurcation….

Maybe you might wanna turn your attention to the circumstances surrounding the "underwear bomber" specifically the provenance of his being allowed to board the plane WITHOUT A PASSPORT…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45wYLMGDTk8

If the "Underware Bomber Event is another False Flag event as the passengers on his flight like Mr, Haskel testify… so the killing of AL Awalki was (apparently..) justified by a false flag event over [Death Star] Detroit … Here is Kirt Haskel, a passenger on the flight that provided the justification for the execution of Al Awalki's ….. Listen CAREFULLY…!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45wYLMGDTk8

No, charter a fleet of C-5 Galaxies and send all of the armchair jingoist Neocon warmongers to Southwest Asia so that they can put their worthless fiat money and pathetic lives where their loud, ignorant mouths are. I say "a fleet of C-5 Galaxies" here because we're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Needless to say, these C-5s will have to make several trips.

Let's call this activity by its proper name.
When Chile's DINA tried to kill Orlanda Letillier via a car bomb, and did kill his American researcher, lefists all over the globe protested this death squad action to kill an outspoken (but only that) dissident. So why the silence on Obama's death squad from above?

Milton Friedman of all people argues against the War of Drugs. Republican Drug Tzar William Bennett said it was a real war and anyone who used drugs or was opposed to the drug war were traitors.
He said There is nothing automatically bad about a war: "A just war, a war in a good cause, is not a bad thing." By his standards our militarized police and Heimat Security officials should be arming drones and firing them into drug dens. Since most missiles will be fired into cities with high populations and result in a lot of collateral damage I am sure they will be handing out a lot of medals and commendations for high body counts, their sure measure of success. They did the same for the crew of the USS Vincennes after shooting down a civilian airbus in Iranian air space.

We are all targets, especially anyone that can be tracked to antiwar.com

The revelation that US intelligence agencies made a deliberate decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board the commercial flight, without any special airport screening, has been buried in the media. As of this writing, nearly a week after the hearing, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have published no articles on the subject. Nor have the broadcast or cable media reported on it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_33ojupTc

The government doesn't need to wait for breakdown of social order to initiate targeted killings in the U.S. All it need do is create a "slippery slope" of gradually intensified outrage answered by gradually corroded due process. First a foreign terrorist will be killed en route to blow up a Ronald McDonald House filled with adorable sick children. Then a homegrown terrorist will be set up via agents provocateur, then killed before he can plant a jock-strap bomb inside a school of other adorable kids with big Margaret-Keene eyes. Then RICO statutes will be amended to include criminals who might "turn terrorist" as "pre-emptive death-warrant" targets. Then any criminals who give signs of perhaps someday stealing a Chevy. Maybe drones, too – why not? They seem to be the future of international and social housecleaning. Safe, too. …For the killers.

I am happy to see that although none of you appear to be Muslim, you are open-minded enough to have figured out that Al-Awlaki is not guilty, there is no eveidence and he was preaching the real Islamic beliefs and sick people twisted those beliefs to suittheir own disturbed agendas. How can he be blamed for that. That is like killing a pastor for his sermons to people who ended up saying that Jesus told them to slaughter people. Obviously that would not be the pastors fault. Those types of actions are the fault of nutcases just like all of the people who were supposedly "inspired" by Al-Awlaki.

Interestingly, I have never seen the transcript of email exchanges between Nidal Hasan the terrorist and Al-Awlaki the proclaimed terrorist master mind. Don't you think the government would have shown the transcripts had it helped their case.

There's nothing legal about extrajudicial assassinations. Just because an elected offical claims as such doesn't make is so. Breaking American laws and international laws are illegal. There is no basis or legitimate reason – even in the context of this'war' – for this man to be murdered (IMO he was a threat because of what he knew). And those in the Obama admin who are claiming as such, and/or participating in such criminal behavior should be arrested and tried in a court of law.

The way it's supposed to be done in a civilized and democratic nation.

It's becoming painfully obvious that U.S doesn't want any of these arch terrorists -especially those with supposed links to 9/11 to be able to talk in a court. KSM and now this guy.

Pope Justin, the sanctimonious moral guide of the soviet inquisition. Justin, the ever seeing eye of the jesterday bolshevik red army, ready to fall on his sword for every terrorist criminal the world over. You name it and Justin says present. Mao had the red book, Gaddafi had the green book, Justin has the standard of high morals book. Justin cannot help himself to give us his view on all things, like an asylum inmate he is now St Justin of Assisi.

Not giving a rip about Awlaki's rights may very well be the reason it has all come to this: people only concerned with their OWN rights.
People feel they have a right to safety, therefor some vaguely threatening person should not have all of his rights. In a society where some people deem their own rights more important than those of others, and a society in which there will always be confilicting interests, a government may be expected to pick and choose which person's rights are more "necessary" to violate.
Rights are rights. If Awlaki's rights to be innocent until proven guilty don't mean anything, then neither do yours. Because your right to criticize Barry's administration may be a threat to the interests of someone else. And since we know now assassination in on the table for anyone threatening the interests of whatever administration happens to be in the White House…

And pray tell, how do you know Awlaki is a "terrorist criminal"?
Oh that's right, because you dear cherished leader tells you so, and you trust them so blindly you don't need annoying little frivolities and details like due process. The State Is Always Right.
And you have the god damned nerve to invoke Mao and Ghadaffi in relation to Justin instead of yourself? Those Powerful Leaders would have loved blind, uncritical and unthinking sheeple like you present yourself to be.
Of course, right-wing state-worshipping drones are *exactly* the same as left-wing state-worshipping clowns, but don't tell so-called "patriots" that. To them, even people like Thomas Jefferson would be a traitor for having the nerve to come up with all those inconvenient constitutional protections. And yet the very thing that made America exceptional in the first place, and the thing that differentiated between America and any run-of-the-mill banana republic, is the very thing so-called "patriots" now want ignored by their Dear Leader in pursuit of their bloodlust.

A person is not a 'criminal' unless and until he has had his guilt proved by a competent court following procedures that reflect at least the semblance of due process. If you are anything other than a craven serf, you would understand that.

Retards like you have been on the side of every tyrant in the history of man. House negroes, kapos, Good Germans.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].